In a Lonely Place, featuring Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame, takes place during the Hollywood era of the 1950s. Dixon “Dix” Steele was a famous screenwriter, but is somewhat washed up. As he tries to find another inspiration, he invites Mildred Atkinson, an innocent energetic coat-check girl at his favorite bar, to come to his house to tell him potential plots. Dix becomes tired and sends Mildred home. Shockingly, Mildred’s body was found discarded over an embankment that same night. Unfortunately for Dix, there are no suspects besides him for this murder. While there is a heightened suspicion and uneasiness, Dix’s alibi and neighbor, Laurel Gray, begins to spend more time with Dix. Laurel is an aspiring actress herself and desires to be with Dix. Laurel and Dix seem to complement each other. Laurel trusts that Dix was not involved and eventually begins to care for him in a wife role. Their friendship develops into romance and eventually they become engaged a couple of years later. During their supposed happiest times, the detectives contact Laurel and inspire doubt regarding Dix’s innocence. Laurel pushes them aside and devotes herself to Dix. However, could Laurel be marrying a violent murderer and be the next victim of Dix’s aggressive rages or will she take everybody’s advice and leave Dix?
The reason this movie falls under "film noir" was not obvious to me until halfway through the middle. Of course this movie has elements of "typical old Hollywood" (either people working in the film making industry or related to it), but more than that, this film possesses a somewhat disturbing eerie sense. Not all film noir movies have this element, but the general creepy feeling comes from the shadows (mostly the dark contrast to the light), the moral ambiguity of the characters (who is innocent and who is guilty of the murder), and the regular surprises in the plot (somebody usually has a dirty little secret that is revealed). This movie has these elements which allows it to fall into the "film noir" category; however, In a Lonely Place does not revolve around a detective nor does it have a typical femme fatale.... or does it?
Jack Nicholson (J.J. Gittes) and Faye Dunaway (Evelyn Mulwray) star in Roman Polanski’s Chinatown. It opens with slow jazz music and subtle colored screen, yet the movie is definitely slow or serene. Gittes, a private detective, lives in Los Angeles during a major water drought. He is hired by Mrs. Mulwray, a rice wealthy woman, to investigate Hollis’, her husband who is the orchestrator of the city’s water supply, possible love affair. As he starts the case, Gittes tails him and realizes Hollis, although has a somewhat odd obsession with water, is a decent man. The case is more complex as he realizes because there is an illegal water conspiracy. Despite the desperate need for water during the drought, clean usable water was being flushed away at nighttime. Before he can ask Water and Power Department questions, Hollis’ body is found in the water reserve. This points the investigation toward Mrs. Mulwray and Hollis’ co-workers. As Gittes digs deeper into Hollis’ life, he discovers that “Mrs. Mulwray” was not even his wife, the impersonator was hired to hire Gittes. The real Mrs. Evelyn Mulwray, a younger and flightier woman, is reluctant to join investigative forces with Gittes. However, Gittes uses his wit to research Hollis’ previous co-business partner, Noah Cross. Throughout the complicated situations between the city’s expensive water scandal, Hollis’ death mystery, and the fishy Evelyn, Gittes continually gets himself into trouble. Like the rest of the story, life is not as it seems because the truth is buried. What lies beneath is shocking and outrageous.
Touch of Evil, by Orson Welles, focuses itself around a newlywed couple, Mike (Charlton Heston) and Susan (Janet Leigh, also in Psycho) spend their marriage between the border of US and Mexico.Here, Mike and Susan witness a car explosion.With his career as a Mexican narcotic policeman, Mike is recruited to help investigate the crime.Also put on the case is the massive figure (both physically and metaphorically) of Captain Quinlan (Orson Welles, himself) whom continues to barge into the investigation.Even though he has a good reputation for solving the cases, his belligerent drunk behavior ruins the integrity of the case.Yet, their lives are both in danger as they continue to involve themselves into the crime.Grande, the local leader of the organized crime, has ties with the car killing and is nothing but trouble throughout the story.At one point, Mike puts Susan in a motel for her safety, but Grande’s gang captures and drugs Susan like a pawn in his whole picture.Vargas, the moral protagonist, discovers that he cannot trust anybody because he found reason to suspect that Quinlan was planting evidence to frame innocent (or free guilty) people. Eventually, Grande’s corrupt deals with the sleazy Captain cost him his life.The suspense for Mike to identify the real criminal becomes the focus of the ending.Through his wits and cleverness (that all Film Noir protagonist should have), Mike is able to solve the case and return to his honeymoon with Susan.
Overall, I am glad I watched this movie, but I doubt I will ever watch it again.Nothing against Orson Welles, I happen to like War of the Worlds, but this movie was too complicated and too slow in parts for me.Typical of Film Noir, the suspense and the logic of the film is emphasized.Yet, I am not sure if I have patience to enjoy the slow moments. The long drawn out sections with mini-episodes (like Quinlan going to Tanya’s brothel a few times or some of the scenes with the weirdest motel clerk of all time) could have been edited a little more for better continuity of the film. Again, I am glad I watched to experience this classic film, but personally, it is not something I would choose to enjoy in the future.
The movie revolves around of missing persons.Two private detectives, Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Archer (Jerome Cowan) take on Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor)’s case of her missing sister whom was suspiciously involved with Floyd Thursby.Yet, there is trouble when a shooting occurs.When Archer was tailing the possible suspect Thursby, Archer was shot and killed.The trouble does not stop there, there is a bigger story that Spade faces.The case turns out to be related to a highly prized stolen artifact, the Maltese Falcon.The history of the Maltese is that it was stolen and worth thousands of dollars.Kasper Gutman, the “fat man”, attempts to get it back from the owner.But as the story proceeds, there are lots of layers of theft which makes the real owner of the Falcon unknown.As Spade encounters Cairo and Wilmer (two of Gutman’s armed cronies), he interferes with Gutman’s plot to steal the Falcon back.As the police attempt to find Archer’s killer, Space is blamed for his partner’s murder.Spade, also continues to deal with the meddling police as he tries to find the solution to the story with the Maltese Falcon, remain alive, and identify the true killer.The twists and unexpected turns in this story intrigue the audience while the quick wit of the characters entertains.
Overall, I would say that I did not enjoy this film.Generally, women able to speak at lightening speaks while reaming helpless bothers me.Unforunately, this is very much the case for 50’s social norms.Also, the men (almost always) call the females pet names, like ‘doll, sugar, honey, angel,’ etc.This part alone did not ruin the movie for me, but it just points out the obvious gender differences of this time.
Unrelated to the movie’s genre of film noir, the power differences and social expectations bother me.Yet, I do understand that this movie was filmed during this period where interactions were expected to be lopsided.
However, I did like the main character’s cleverness and charisma.Like most other male main character in film noir, there I something clever and wily about him which allows him to get out of danger.This character is funny to me because he is fantasy and rare in real life.
Again, I did not like this movie as w hole as much as others, yet there were aspects in which I did enjoy, like relating to the characters, laughing at funny moments, and appreciating the quick sarcasm/wit.
Classical Hollywood Narration or American Narration?
While watching Monsoon Wedding, Daughters of the Dust, and Casablanca, it seems clear to me that these three different movies represent a bigger cultural narration clash. In order to further discuss this, I need to first define what “classical Hollywood narration” is. Usually, it consists of a few things like the plot centered on a couple of main characters whom have certain goals, a linear time sequence, or the presentation (that the movie is meant to be realistic instead of abstract). Opposite of this, the alternative film narration focuses around not a few characters, but rather groups, is less realistic, and defies the rules of directional narrative.
Casablanca, made in 1942 during the Hollywood assembly line age, is about Rick Blaine’s story as he lives in a destitute town during WWII. In this classic black and white romance, Rick’s story focuses mainly on his life.
Daughters of the Dust, produced by a woman in 1991, is a story about an African family living in North Carolina stuck between the decision either to honor the ancestors or live a better life off the island. Here, the story takes place mainly through the women’s conversations and their viewpoints.
Monsoon Wedding, a 2001 ‘westernized’ version of a classic Bollywood, is about a family planning a wedding and all of the traditions involved. The family has many individual struggles; however, they are brought together for their common union for each other.
These three movies are different for a couple reasons like, like they are made in very different time period or the basic plot of the films are different. However, there is a main difference that I noticed that separates Casablanca and Daughters of the Dust / Monsoon Wedding. According to the general guidelines for a classical Hollywood narration, the story is supposed to be focused on one or two main characters. In Casablanca, Rick and his long-lost love Ilsa are arguably the main characters besides a few side plots (like the Nazi soldiers and Victor Laszlo). The audience knows his past thanks to a flashback, his present, and some of his future actions.
However, Monsoon Wedding and Daughters of the Dust are very different. Again, the basic premise of the plot is one in which involves around a family. Instead of a singular character, it is around the interpersonal relationships and family communication the family system has. The Peazant family, of Daughters of the Dust, face new decisions between traditional ways and the pioneering ideas of moving. The Verma family, of Monsoon Wedding, has to plan a wedding for their prized daughter, but are stuck in how the family dynamics will change. Again, these plots are vastly different. Yet, I have to ask what makes Casablanca classical Hollywood narration while Daughters of the Dust and Monsoon Wedding are not considered classical Hollywood narratives.
The main thought here comes from that Casablanca is not necessarily “Hollywood” narration as it is “WASP” narration. Most likely, the producers of this movie are White-Anglo Saxon and have typical American values, like individualistic and reparation. So, I am curious on what makes it classical Hollywood narration as it could be the white hegemony values.
Compared to this, other cultures have different concentrations. Here, I think of how Indians are much more collectivistic. It totally makes sense that the movie would be dependent on a family’s interaction with each other instead of a single individual. Indian families are normally very close. Different behaviors and lifestyles make their interactions more frequent. It makes sense that Indian marriages are arranged and family approval is necessary.
Likewise, African families rely heavily in generational value. It is important for families to appreciate their older members. So, Nana Peazant, the matriarch, would have a strong voice in the family. Their present actions are defined by the past actions, so time does not happen in a linear fashion.
The cultural differences brings me to the point that the classical Hollywood narration is characterized more inline with WASP culture instead of particular film qualities. The alternative narration guidelines are focuses mostly on other international cultures. (note: I know that Hollywood has a much more successful film business, but my point here would be to include more diverse culture narration guidelines so it does not seem as wasp centered as it does to me)
Monsoon Wedding is a story about an Indian family as they prepare for a wedding. Unlike many other Bollywood movies, this film was especially made for the Western audience because the length of time was shorter than average videos. Typical in Indian weddings, the celebrations last for many days and involve lots of family members and traditions. While Aditi prepares herself for an arranged marriage, she has to choose between her current tumultuous and shady love affair and the potential for true love with her fiancée, Hemant. Meanwhile, the parents grieve the loss of their daughter as they ‘lose her to marriage’ and the father becomes obsessed planning an extravagant wedding event. The sometimes absent-minded wedding planner, known as P.K., is hypnotized by Alice, the house servant, but the two are reserved with their instant passion for each other. Parallel to these love issues, there are also family secrets and frustrations that arise which can harm the very interdependent family and ruin the wedding events. The future for this family is unknown, but their path is full with love and support for each other (possibly some marigolds as well).
This has been a movie in which I really enjoyed. I am not sure if it is because I have not so much enjoyed the last bunch of movies or if I understand Indian cultures well. It was beautifully made with all the colors in their decorations, surroundings and even wardrobe. I loved the dancing and the aspects of the culture that were so blatantly present. Plus, weddings in general are already very exciting. I guess it was guaranteed that I was going to like this one. The only thing that I would change would be the amount of flowers PK ate!? I am not used to that!
Daughters of the Dust opens with the Unborn Child, narrator, who is found to be at the core of her family’s relationships because she represents new life.As a family is faced with the decision between the old times and new, the large close-knit family experiences trials and troubles.On one side, Nana (whom is the matriarchal head) feels like it would be neglecting their families’ generations of solid guidance if they moved off of the GullahIsland.Since she is a devout follower of voo-doo and other ‘natural’ family spirits, Nana takes it as an insult that some members would want to leave their African past / heritage, which she regards as her identity.Here, it is distinct that the family suffers through changes as the old traditional ways, which the Peazant family was based of off, and the new westernized “secular” ways of society. Although precious ancestors have started their family from nothing, some family members feel as if it is time for them to move off the island and into a place with more civilization.The younger generations of the family want something besides the hard life that Gullah offers them.Also, there are some interpersonal issues pieces of the family experience, like a rape and the consequential separation between husband and wife. As the women hash out their beliefs from the changing times, it is clear that family relationships and their family as a whole is important to them all.
At points, this movie was very difficult to follow for a few reasons.One, it was not always clear who the character was.It was nearly impossible to identify their place in the family if somebody was not there explaining it.In this movie, it is important to connect each character and their role in the family.I guess this also relates to how not all of the names were known.To change this movie, a family tree diagram would be helpful, but definitely is silly to include in the movie!Also, it was sometimes difficult to understand the content of the script because of thick accents. It was depicting the family as recent decedents from Africa, but I had a hard time understanding all of their words. These two minor aspects would have really assisted in my knowledge of the plot, but overall did not take away from the family’s message.
_01.jpg)
